Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 80, Issue 1, pp 135–145 | Cite as

Effect of monensin feeding and withdrawal on populations of individual bacterial species in the rumen of lactating dairy cows fed high-starch rations

  • Paul J. Weimer
  • David M. Stevenson
  • David R. Mertens
  • Elvin E. Thomas
Applied Microbial and Cell Physiology


Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to quantify 16 procaryotic taxa in the rumina of two lactating dairy cows following supply and subsequent withdrawal of the feed additive monensin (13.9 mg/kg of diet dry matter) in a high-starch, silage-based ration. PCR was conducted on DNA from rumen samples collected 6 h post feeding on two successive days before monensin supplementation, after 30 days of monensin supplementation, and at six weekly intervals after monensin withdrawal. Mean values of relative population size (RPS, the percent of bacterial 16S rRNA copy number) for genus Prevotella increased (P < 0.05) from 41.8% without monensin to 49.2% with monensin and declined to 42.5% after monensin withdrawal. Mean RPS values for two biohydrogenating species (Megasphaera elsdenii and Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens) were low (<0.4%) and declined several-fold in response to monensin. Mean RPS values for the biohydrogenating species Eubacterium ruminantium, four cellulolytic species, four starch- or dextrin-fermenting species, and Domain Archaea were not altered (P > 0.10) upon monensin feeding or withdrawal. The data suggest that monensin in high-starch diets does not suppress populations of classical ruminal Gram-positive bacteria or the availability of H2, though it may affect bacteria involved in biohydrogenation of lipids that regulate bovine mammary lipogenesis.


Rumen Real-time PCR Bacterial populations Dairy cattle Prevotella Biohydrogenation 



We thank C.L. Odt and K. Darling for technical assistance; M. Becker, D. Amundson, and S. Bertics for chemical analyses; J.B. Russell and M.B. Hall for useful discussions; and the UW Dairy Barn Crew for animal handling. This research was funded through USDA–ARS CRIS project 3655-21000-033-00D and a Trust Fund Agreement between USDA–ARS and Elanco Animal Health, Inc.


  1. Benchaar C, Petit HV, Berthiaume R, Whyte TD, Chouinard PY (2006) Effects of addition of essential oils and monensin premix on digestion, ruminal fermentation, milk production, and milk composition in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 89:4352–4364Google Scholar
  2. Callaway TR, Russell JB (1999) Selection of a highly monensin-resistant Prevotella bryantii sub-population with altered outer membrane characteristics. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:4753–4759Google Scholar
  3. Chaudhary UB, Upadhyaya RS, Singh N (2004) Effect of feeding monensin and vitamin E on rumen ciliate populations in goats. Indian J Anim Sci 74:980–982Google Scholar
  4. Eifert EC, Lana RP, Lanna DPD, Arcuri PB, Leao MI, Valadares-Filho SC, Leopoldino WM, Souza de Silvo JH (2005) Effect of dietary supplementation of monensin and soybean oil on production of early lactating cows. Rev Brasil Zootec 34:2123–2132 (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  5. Griinari JM, Swyer CA, McGuire MA, Baumann DE, Palmquist DL (1998) Trans-octadecenoic acids and milk fat depression in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 81:1251–1261Google Scholar
  6. Harfoot CG, Hazlewood GP (1988) Lipid metabolism in the rumen. In: Hobson PN (ed) The rumen microbial ecosystem. Elsevier, London, pp 285–322Google Scholar
  7. Hegarty RS (1999) Mechanisms for competitively reducing ruminal methanogenesis. Austr J Agric Res 50:1299–1305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hespell RB, Wolf R, Bothast RJ (1987) Fermentation of xylans by Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens and other ruminal bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 53:2849–2853Google Scholar
  9. Ipharraguerre IR, Clark GH (2003) Usefulness of ionophores for lactating dairy cows: a review. Anim Feed Sci Technol 106:39–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jenkins TC, Fellner V, McGuffey RK (2003) Monenesin by fat interactions on trans fatty acids in cultures of mixed ruminal microorganisms grown in continuous fermentors fed corn or barley. J Dairy Sci 86:324–330Google Scholar
  11. Klappenbach JA, Saxman PR, Cole JR, Schmidt TM (2001) rrndb: the ribosomal RNA operon copy number database. Nucl Acids Res 29:181–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mackintosh ED, Phipps RH, Sutton JD, Humphries DJ, Wilkinson JID (2002) Effect of monensin on rumen fermentation and digestion and milk production in lactating dairy cows. J Anim Feed Sci 11:399–410Google Scholar
  13. Mathison GW, Okine EK, McAllister TA, Dong Y, Galbraith J, Dmytruk OIN (1998) Reducing methane emissions from ruminant animals. J Appl Anim Res 14:1–28Google Scholar
  14. Mertens DR (2002a) Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fiber in feeds with refluxing in beakers or crucibles: collaborative study. J Assoc Offic Anal Chemists International 85:1217–1240Google Scholar
  15. Mertens DR (2002b) Measuring fiber and its effectiveness in ruminant diets. Proceedings of the Plains Nutrition Council Spring Meeting, San Antonio, TX, April 25–26, 2000. Texas A&M Research and Extension Center Publication No. AREC 01–20, pp. 40–66Google Scholar
  16. Phipps RH, Wilkinson JI, Jonker LJ, Tarrant M, Jones AK, Hodge A (2000) Effect of monensin on milk production of Holstein–Friesian dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 83:2789–2794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Russell JB (2002) Rumen microbiology and its role in ruminant nutrition. James B. Russell, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  18. Russell JB, Houlihan A (2003) Ionophore resistance of ruminal bacteria and its potential impact on human health. FEMS Microbiology Rev 27:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Russell JB, Strobel HJ (1988) Effects of additives on in vitro ruminal fermentation: a comparison of monensin and bacitracin, another gram-positive antibiotic. J Anim Sci 66:552–558Google Scholar
  20. Rychlik JL, Russell JB (2002) The adaptation and resistance of Clostridium aminophilum F to the butyrivibriocin-like substance of Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens JL5 and monensin. FEMS Microbiol Lett 209:93–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. SAS Institute (2000) SAS/STAT user’s guide. Release 8.02. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  22. Sauer FD, Fellner V, Kinsman R, Kramer JKG, Jackson HA, Lee AJ, Chen S (1998) Methane output and lactation response in Holstein cattle with monensin or unsaturated fat added to the diet. J Anim Sci 76:906–914Google Scholar
  23. Stevenson DM, Weimer PJ (2007) Dominance of Prevotella and low abundance of classical ruminal bacterial species in the bovine rumen as revealed by relative quantification real-time PCR. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 75:165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stewart CS, Richardson AJ (1989) Enhanced resistance of anaerobic rumen fungi to the ionophores monensin and lasalocid in the presence of methanogenic bacteria. J Appl Bacteriol 66:85–93Google Scholar
  25. Tajima K, Aminov RI, Nagmine T, Matsui H, Nakamura M, Benno Y (2001) Diet-dependent shifts in the bacterial population of the rumen revealed with real-time PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:2766–2774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Takahashi J (2001) Nutritional manipulation of methanogenesis in ruminants. Asian-Austr J Anim Sci 14:131–135Google Scholar
  27. Van Buelken P, Van Lingen AFV, Peeters ME, Wensing T, Breukink H (1984) Effects of monensin in the ration on milk fat production and some rumen metabolites in cows during early and midlactation. Zentralbl Vet Reihe A 31:350–360Google Scholar
  28. Vogels GD, Hoppe WF, Stumm CK (1980) Association of methanogenic bacteria with rumen ciliates. Appl Environ Microbiol 40:608–612Google Scholar
  29. Weimer PJ, Shi Y, Odt CL (1991) A segmented gas/liquid delivery system for continuous culture of microorganisms on solid substrates, and its use for growth of Ruminococcus flavefaciens on cellulose. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 36:178–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weimer PJ, Waghorn GC, Odt CL, Mertens DR (1999) Effect of diet on populations of three species of ruminal cellulolytic bacteria in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 82:122–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Weimer PJ, Conner AJ, Lorenz LF (2003) Solid residues of Ruminococcus cellulose fermentations as components of wood adhesive formulations. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 63:29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yarlett N, Coleman GS, Williams AG, Lloyd D (1984) Hydrogenosomes in known species of rumen entodiniomorphid protozoa. FEMS Microbiol Lett 21:15–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yarlett N, Orpin CG, Munn EA, Yarlett NC, Greenwood CA (1986) Hydrogenosomes in the rumen fungus Neocallimastix patriciarum. Biochem J 236:729–739Google Scholar
  34. Yu Y, Lee C, Ki J, Hwang S (2005) Group-specific primer and probe sets to detect methanogenic communities using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Biotechnol Bioeng 89:670–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul J. Weimer
    • 1
    • 2
  • David M. Stevenson
    • 1
  • David R. Mertens
    • 1
  • Elvin E. Thomas
    • 3
  1. 1.USDA–ARSUS Dairy Forage Research CenterMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of BacteriologyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Elanco Animal Health, Inc.GreenfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations